* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

1 United States v. Edwards , No. 96-60667 (5 th Cir. May 5, 1997) (unpublished). UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-10019

GARLAND EDWARDS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GEORGE E. KILLINGER, Warden,

Federal Correctional Institution, Fort Worth,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(4:97-CV-849-A)

August 14, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Garland Edwards, convicted on a guilty plea of conspiracy to possess with

intent to distribute cocaine, appeals the denial of his petition for habeas corpus

relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons assigned, we affirm.

There was no direct appeal of Edwards’ convicti on or sentence, but he moved

for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. This

motion was denied; we affirmed on appeal. 1 Edwards then sought permission to2 516 U.S. 137 (1995).

3 In Re: Edwards , No. 97-00546 (5 th Cir. Dec. 10, 1997) (unpublished).

4 Ojo v. I.N.S. , 106 F.3d 680 (5 th Cir. 1997).

2 file a suc cessive section 2255 petition in which he would seek to challenge the

enhancement of his sentence for possession of a firearm in light of the decision in

Bailey v. United States

. 2 We denied that motion. 3 The instant petition followed.

A hearing was conducted by a magistrate judge who issued a report with the

recommendation that Edwards’ habeas petition be denied. Edwards filed

objections. The district court adopted the report of the magistrate judge. Edwards

moved for reconsideration; the motion was denied. He then filed a notice of appeal

of the district court’s judgment and moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

.

The magistrate judge granted IFP. The district judge construed the notice of appeal

as a motion for a certificate of appealability and issued an order denying a COA.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal of a judgment denying a section 22 41 petition, no

COA is required. 4

Edwards contends that the district court erred in denying his claim that the

Bureau of Prisons violated his due process and equal protection rights by denying

him a one-year sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B) because of the

enhancement of his sentence under section 2D1.1(b)(1) of the Sentencing

Guidelines for possession of a firearm during the underlying offense. We are not

persuaded.

The contentions advanced by Ed wards are foreclosed by dispositive decisions5 Venegas v. Henman , 126 F.3d 760 (5 th Cir. 1997).

6 Hawkins v. Agricultural Mktg. Serv., Dept. of Agric.

, 10 F.3d 1125, 1131-32 (5 th Cir.

1993).

3 of this court. He does not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in a

discretionary early release under section 3621(e)(2)(B). 5 Nor may he demonstrate

an equal protection violation by merel y pointing to a disagreement among the

circuits as to the interpretation to be given this sta tute. We have held that

“disagreement between the circuits on th e interpretation of a federal statute is a

matter which either the Supreme Court or Congress should resolve; it does not

violate the equal protection rights of the person subjected to the ‘more burdensome

interpretation.’” 6

The judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.